Ansar Khan Hussain Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Judgment (PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-. The Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2026 is filed by the informant challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.280 of 2018, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 / original accused are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201 along with Section120-B of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the A.L.S No. 41 of 2026 is also filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the aforesaid accused.

The case of prosecution in brief is as under:-

On 27.12.2017 the appellant-informant i.e. P.W.-1 was present in his house in the evening at about 9.00 p.m.. On the same day, his father had gone to attend one reception programme at Sahanaz Function Hall, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. While leaving from the house, he had made phone call to one of his friends. Accordingly both of them went to said function hall at Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. The deceased, Hussain Khan, was doing business of plotting and due to that business he was carrying rivalry with Athan Khan Fazaloddin Khan and Shaikh Latil Shaikh Ismail. Those persons with some other persons were regularly filing false cases against father of informant and also threatening to kill him.

Further according to the prosecution on 28.12.2017, at about 2.00 a.m., the deceased Hussain Khan, was found lying dead near Prachi Garage, Laxmi Colony, Cantonment, Aurangabad. He had sustained bleeding injuries on head and one Unicorn motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-20-CK-2030 was also lying on the spot. P.W.-34 i.e. police constable on patrolling duty saw the deceased and also found mobile phone in his pocket. When he called wife of deceased, the appellant-informant came on the spot and identified the dead-body as that of his father. Accordingly, the informant lodged report against the accused, raising suspicion that his father was murdered by them on account of property dispute. Accordingly the crime was registered and all the respondents-accused were charge-sheeted. However, after conducting the trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted all the respondents-accused. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of the Sessions Case and therefore the proceeding stood abated against him.

The learned counsel for the appellant-informant as well as learned APP, strongly submitted that the death of father of the informant was proved to be homicidal one and certain incriminating articles were also recovered at the instance of some of the respondents-accused. Moreover, the iron rod (article-A) seized from the spot and remaining two rods were recovered at the instance of some of the accused. Moreover, all these rods found to be pieces of same iron rod. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant-informant as well as learned APP submitted that despite such convincing evidence, the learned Trial Judge ignored the same and wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused.

With the assistant of learned counsel for the appellant-informant as well as learned APP, we have gone through the entire judgment and notes of evidence.

It is significant to note that, there is no eye-witness to the incident but the body of deceased was found in abandoned near Prachi Garage. Thus, the case of prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. It is the case of prosecution that P.W.-2 along with accused No.1 and deceased were together till 12:30 a.m. on the date of incident and when P.W.-2 left from there, the accused No.1 had in fact called other accused and committed murder of deceased by inflicting as many as fifteen injuries on his head with the help of iron rods. Admittedly, the death appears to be homicidal, however the case of the prosecution is entirely based on last seen together theory. It is extremely important to note that the P.W.-2 has stated that till 00:30 hours on the day of incident, he was with accused No. 1 and deceased and in the said night the deceased was found dead but the evidence of P.W.-2 is limited only to the extent of presence of accused No.1 with the deceased and the proceeding against the accused No.1 has already been abated. There is no evidence on record that anybody had seen the deceased lastly in the company of other accused. Therefore, the prosecution has not established the last seen theory regarding the respondents-accused.

Moreover, after going through the entire impugned judgment, it clearly appears that the prosecution has not established the motive i.e. transaction between P.W.3 and P.W.19. There is no supporting document in respect of said motive and the evidence of those witnesses are contrary to the cancellation deed at Exh. 284. Even the evidence regarding threats given by accused No.1 to P.W.-2 is not reliable one. The discovery of motorcycle, rods and Moped is also doubtful and the record gives impression that the memorandum statements of the concerned accused were not voluntary. The discovery panch-witnesse was already told about the articles which were to be seized. The pieces of rod discovered at the instance of some of the accused appear ordinary articles available anywhere in the market and same were in fact discovered from open places. The mobile numbers as well as sim-cards seized, they are not mentioned in the panchnamas and even though the accused were allegedly in proximity with the deceased who sustain bleeding injuries, no blood stains were found on the clothes of respondents-accused as per the forensic report Exh. 644. The evidence in respect of alleged conspiracy is entirely missing and though the accused were found using mobile phones but their location at the time of incident could not be ascertained.

It is settled position that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the chain of each and every circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. In the instance case, no such chain is established by the prosecution against the accused. Further it is also settled that in the appeal against acquittal, it is not allowed to take another view merely because it is possible. The guilt of the respondents-accused needs to be established beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore considering the scope of second appeal, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has taken a possible view and acquitted the respondents-accused.

Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and accordingly we dismiss the appeal filed by the informant-appellant as well as application for leave to appeal filed by State. Accordingly the Cri. Appeal No. 381 of 2026 as well as A.L.S. No. 41 of 2026 stand disposed of.